What is Justice--A Test

Most governments have a judicial system based partly on Justice and partly on revenge. Some may argue that this is inevitable and required to prevent citizens who believe they have been wronged from taking the law into their own hands. In short, a judicial system is partly based upon revenge to prevent civil unrest.

I did not define "Justice" in the introduction for a reason. A Judicial system is, arguably, the most important aspect of a society. It implements values and ensures peace. I encourage you to answer the following question, and then explain why. I believe that your answer will define your belief in Justice. Please expand upon your answers as much as you like.

--Citizen X brings a licensed gun to work and opens fire in the lobby killing 50 people.

--Citizen X has unnamed medical condition that made him believe that he had to fire that gun in the lobby. The medical condition made him believe that it was not only the "right" thing to do, but he also had absolutely no choice.

--The day after he commits the crime a cure is found for this unnamed medical condition and Citizen X is cured.

hes going to sit in a nice cell ina max hospital for the rest of his life. probably die there. but then again, the US has been known to execute the mentally ill in the past.
but surley he is going to pay in some way.

Well, first of all, you are assuming that a medical condition can and did cause this person to believe that he had to fire the gun, that it was the right thing to do and that he had no choice.

I do not believe that is possible- ever.

So....just for giggles:

If the person did not, in fact, believe that his action were wrong and appreciate the consequences of that action, he is not guilty under NY law (can't speak for the other states) by reason of mental defect. The consequence of his actions, however, would afford the government the right to incarcerate him in a facility to rehabilitate him, more commonly known as a mental hospital until such time as his "defect" is cured. Thus, if the absurd notion was proven that he was cured was borne out, he'd be a free man. His "penalty" would be therefore, sanity and the knowledge that he murdered innocent people.

Many medical conditions pervade the ability of an individual from determinging what is right from wrong. Some that I am familiar with warp "right, and "wrong," into a self oriented value system. Right is what makes them feel good, wrong is what makes them feel bad. If what makes them feel good or bad is corrupted by dillusion, paranoia, or other conditions, the above medical condition is possible.

The point of this question is to determine if there should be an aspect of "Revenge" in the judicial system. If someone commits an act because of a condition that is cured the very next day, why should they be sentenced to prison? It is, I admit, an extreme example, but it is used to address a point. While the person who commited that act will hold the guilt of their actions for the rest of their lives, at this point, there is nothing wrong with them, and it is argued that they are not responsible for their actions. I am not asking what the law does now, I am familiar with current laws, I am curious what do you think the law SHOULD do.

In my mind the "why" is irrelevant. His state of mind is irrelevant. The 'insanity' defense doesn't fly with me. His "cure" is irrelevant. He should be exterminated like any other dangerous animal. Not out of revenge, but to protect society.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!